DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining Judges' Hobson's Choice Approach to Amending Complaints Lauren A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining Judges' Hobson's Choice Approach to Amending Complaints Lauren A Examining Judges' Hobson's Choice Approach to Amending Complaints Lauren A. Ormsbee and Michael D. Blatchley, as Published in New York Law Journal August 21, 2015 Lauren A. Ormsbee and Michael D. Blatchley In Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3 Limited v. Wells Fargo Securities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of a complaint "with prejudice" because the "procedure by which the district court denied leave to amend was improper." According to the Second Circuit, the error occurred when the district court "presented Plaintiffs with a Hobson's choice" to either immediately amend the complaint after defendants previewed their arguments for dismissal, or forfeit the right to do so later after the court's decision on the motion to dismiss.1 This aspect of the Loreley Financing decision may have an impact on the individual practices of more than a dozen district court judges in the Southern District of New York who have adopted or employed a similar amend-now-or-never approach with respect to dismissals with prejudice. Loreley Financing involved allegations of fraud and other common-law violations brought against Wachovia Bank NA (which was later acquired by Wells Fargo) and two collateral managers of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) by several investors who lost millions of dollars through their investments in the CDOs. On March 28, 2013, Judge Richard Sullivan dismissed plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied plaintiffs' request to replead.2 In an extensive 57-page opinion, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the bank and one of the collateral managers, but upheld the dismissal of claims against the other collateral manager. The Second Circuit also held—"separate and apart from [the dismissal] errors—that the district court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint."3 The court specifically determined that "the procedure by which the district court denied leave to amend was improper" because it forced plaintiffs to either replead "[w]ithout the benefit of a ruling" or waive the right to do so later.4 Practice in Southern District At the heart of the Second Circuit's review of the district court's denial of leave to amend was the lower court's requirement that plaintiffs either choose to amend their complaint following a pre-motion presentation by defendants of the grounds for their motion to dismiss on the pleadings, or forever forfeit their ability to replead. In Loreley Financing, Judge Sullivan informed plaintiffs during the pre-motion conference that "one of the reasons I have a pre[-]motion conference policy…is that it allows defendants to front their arguments and often then it presents an opportunity for plaintiffs to amend their complaint. And if [plaintiffs] don't take advantage of that opportunity, then I don't necessarily give them another opportunity later."5 Plaintiffs stood on their complaint, and the district court denied their request to amend following its dismissal, citing only the admonition made during the pre-motion conference.6 Judge Sullivan's amend-now-or-never approach to complaints is far from unique among judges in the Southern District of New York. For example, Judge Richard Berman's rules of practice state: "Motions to dismiss in civil cases will be decided 'with prejudice' where the opposing party has been given the opportunity to amend the pleadings after receiving the moving party's pre-motion letter." The individual rules of practice of almost a dozen other judges formally adopt a similar approach.7Other judges, like Sullivan in Loreley Financing, have not formalized this procedure in their individual practices, but have employed this approach in certain cases to deny leave to amend based on plaintiffs' choice not to replead following the exchange of pre-motion letters.8 Consistent with its widespread and growing use among district court judges, prior to Loreley Financing, this pre-motion amendment "procedure" appeared to have at least the tacit approval of the Second Circuit. For example, in Rosner v. Star Gas Partners, the Second Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice when plaintiffs declined an opportunity to amend after defendants previewed their arguments in support of their motion to dismiss at a pre-motion conference.9 Similarly, in Bellikoff v. Eaton Vance, the Second Circuit noted that plaintiffs were not entitled to an "advisory opinion from the court informing them of the deficiencies in the complaint and then an opportunity to cure those deficiencies" in upholding the district court's denial of leave to amend.10 Second Circuit's Rebuke The Second Circuit in Loreley Financing sharply criticized the court's use of this now-or-never approach to amendments. As the Second Circuit held, the district court's treatment of the plaintiffs' "decision to stand by the complaint after a preview of defendants' arguments—in the critical absence of a definitive ruling" was an abuse of discretion and effectuated an improper "forfeiture of the protections afforded by Rule 15" of the Federal Rules. In so holding, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the "strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits" and the "liberal spirit of Rule 15," which requires that leave to amend be "freely" granted whenever "justice so requires." The Second Circuit specifically held that leave to amend cannot be denied absent a finding of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, futility or other grounds traditionally considered a proper basis for denying leave to amend.11 The Second Circuit also made clear that the approach of requiring plaintiffs to immediately amend pre-motion or waive their ability to do so later was not one of the long-held "proper" bases for denying leave, noting that the Federal Rules themselves "do not speak to the use of pre-motion conferences." While the Second Circuit did not find the use of pre-motion conferences alone "problematic" because such conferences "may in many instances efficiently narrow and/or resolve open issues," the court held that the impropriety occurred …when the district court…presented plaintiffs with a Hobson's choice: agree to cure deficiencies not yet fully briefed and decided or forfeit the opportunity to replead. Without the benefit of a ruling, many a plaintiff will not see the necessity of amendment or be in a position to weigh the practicality and possible means of curing specific deficiencies. *** The present case combines a complex commercial reality with a long, multi-prong complaint. In such situations, pleading defects may not only be latent, and easily missed or misperceived without full briefing and judicial resolution; they may also be borderline, and hence subject to reasonable dispute.12 The Second Circuit concluded that amendment of the pleadings against the dismissed collateral manager would not be futile, and instructed the district court to grant plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to address any pleading defects identified in its order.13 Broader Impact In light of Loreley Financing, district courts that have adopted approaches similar to that employed by Judge Sullivan may be forced to revisit their individual rules of practice to ensure compliance with the federal rules. While district courts may continue to view pre-motion letter exchanges or conferences as helpful means of narrowing contested motion to dismiss arguments, Loreley Financing suggests such procedures can no longer be deployed to deprive a plaintiff of a later opportunity to amend. Indeed, to the extent a district court provides a plaintiff with the "Hobson's choice" of amending prior to a ruling on a motion to dismiss or forfeiting any further right to amend, that court risks reversal of any subsequent dismissal "with prejudice."14 Such a risk would appear to be especially acute in complex litigation, such as securities, antitrust and other complex cases similar to Loreley Financing that involve difficult or nuanced pleading issues that may be "borderline" and "subject to reasonable dispute."15 Loreley Financing's impact also extends beyond the so-called "Hobson's choice" approach to motion-to- dismiss briefing criticized by the Second Circuit. By reaffirming the fundamental principles underlying "the liberal standard set forth in Rule 15," Loreley Financing protects plaintiffs with meritorious claims from dismissal absent "the benefit of a ruling" from the district court.16 WhileLoreley Financing will of course apply whenever a plaintiff is faced with an invitation to amend immediately or waive the right to replead, any plaintiff can cite the opinion in support of an argument that leave to amend cannot be denied without judicial guidance as to "the precise defects" in a complaint. As a result, the Second Circuit's opinion may also help improve the quality of complaints in complex cases by incentivizing district courts to more fully address how pleading defects may be cured—a result that the Second Circuit determined was "'consistent with our strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits.'"17 Endnotes: 1. Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3 v. Wells Fargo, No. 13-1476-cv, 2015 WL 4492258, at *24-26 (2d Cir. July 24, 2015) (Loreley Financing). 2. Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3 v. Wells Fargo, 12 Civ. 3723 (RJS), 2013 WL 1294668 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013) (Loreley I). 3. Loreley Financing, 2015
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEAN & DELUCA NEW YORK, INC., Et Al., Debtors. 1
    20-10916-mew Doc 315 Filed 09/17/20 Entered 09/17/20 17:14:41 Main Document Pg 1 of 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : In re: : Chapter 11 : DEAN & DELUCA NEW YORK, INC., et al., : Case No. 20-10916 (MEW) : Debtors. 1 : Jointly Administered : : : SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARK LEONARDO IN SUPPORT OF DEBTORS’ APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF NUTTER MCCLENNAN & FISH LLP AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL TO THE DEBTORS I, Mark Leonardo, being duly sworn, state the following under penalty of perjury. 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP (“NM&F”), which maintains offices for the practice of law at 155 Seaport Blvd., Boston, Massachusetts, as well as in Hyannis, and am duly admitted to practice law in Massachusetts. 2. This Supplemental Declaration is provided as a supplement to Exhibit B of the Debtors’ Application For Entry Of An Order Authorizing The Employment And Retention Of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP As Intellectual Property Counsel To The Debtors, ECF No. 167 (the “Initial Declaration”). 1 The Debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases and the last four digits of each Debtor's taxpayer identification number are as follows: Dean & Deluca New York, Inc. (3111); Dean & Deluca, Inc. (2998); Dean & Deluca Brands, Inc. (2878); Dean & Deluca International, LLC (8995); Dean & Deluca Small Format, LLC (1806); Dean & Deluca Atlanta, LLC (6678); Dean & Deluca Markets, LLC (2674). The registered address for the Debtors is 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. 20-10916-mew Doc 315 Filed 09/17/20 Entered 09/17/20 17:14:41 Main Document Pg 2 of 16 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Supp Deutch Declaration
    20-11684-dsj Doc 220 Filed 04/22/21 Entered 04/22/21 09:55:32 Main Document Pg 1 of 15 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) OLD OB, LLC1 ) Case No. 20-11684 (SMB) ) Debtor. ) ) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DEUTCH IN SUPPORT OF DEBTOR’S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF OMNI AGENT SOLUTIONS AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT EFFECTIVE AS OF AUGUST 24, 2020 I, Paul H. Deutch, under penalty of perjury, declare as follows: 1. I am the Executive Vice President of Omni Agent Solutions, Inc. (“Omni”). Except as otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. I submit this supplemental declaration (the “Supplemental Declaration”) on behalf of Omni in support of the application 2 [Docket No. 204] (the “Section 327 Application”), of the Debtor for an order appointing Omni as administrative agent for the Debtor effective as of August 24, 2020 filed in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the “Bankruptcy Case”). Except as otherwise indicated herein, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called as a witness, would testify competently thereto. 2. The facts set forth below are based either upon my personal knowledge, discussions with other employees of Omni, or review of the client/matter records of Omni by me or by other employees of Omni. 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number is 3434.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ------X
    20-11684-smb Doc 119 Filed 10/26/20 Entered 10/26/20 09:58:35 Main Document Pg 1 of 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------x In re : Chapter 11 OCCASION BRANDS, LLC, : Case No. 20-11684 (SMB) Debtor. : ---------------------------------------------x NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF CONSUMER PRIVACY OMBUDSMAN WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to the order entered October 26, 2020 (ECF No. 118 ) directing the appointment under 11 U.S.C. § 332 of a consumer privacy ombudsman, hereby appoints Alan Chapell as consumer privacy ombudsman. The offices of Alan Chapell are at 692 Greenwich Street, Suite 5, New York, NY 10014. This notice is accompanied by a verified statement of Alan Chapell setting forth his connections with the debtor, creditors, any party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States Trustee, and any person employed in the Office of the United States Trustee. Dated: New York, New York October 26, 2020 WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE By: /s/ Susan A. Arbeit SUSAN A. ARBEIT Trial Attorney U.S. Federal Office Building 201 Varick St., Room 1006 New York, New York 10014 (212) 510-0500 20-11684-smb Doc 119 Filed 10/26/20 Entered 10/26/20 09:58:35 Main Document Pg 2 of 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------x In re : Chapter 11 OCCASION BRANDS, LLC, : Case No. 20-11684 (SMB) Debtor. : ---------------------------------------------x VERIFIED STATEMENT OF ALAN CHAPELL, CONSUMER PRIVACY OMBUDSMAN Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 6004(g) (2), I, Alan Chapell, hereby state and declare as follows: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2D
    Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2d. ed.) OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEES: Where They Are in Place, How They Operate, and What to Consider in Establishing and Managing Them The Governance Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS), and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution have revised the June 2010 first edition of this guide, and will continue to issue revisions periodically. It provides United States senators, other federal legislators, and their staffs with information about creating committees to screen potential judicial and law enforcement position nominees; provides them and committee members with information about committee operations; and provides others interested in federal judicial selection with information about an often- overlooked aspect of the process. It is not a “best practices” manual, in part because relatively little is known about how such committees work and even less about what seems to work best. The most current version of the guide is available at: www.du.edu/legalinstitute and www.brookings.edu/experts/wheelerr.aspx This guide was authored principally by: Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a Visiting Fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program. He has served on the IAALS Board of Advisors since its creation in 2006. Rebecca Love Kourlis, executive director of IAALS. She served on Senator Ken Salazar’s screening committee and co-chaired the committee that Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet appointed to screen candidates for two District of Colorado vacancies. (Malia Reddick, director of judicial programs for the Institute, assists with ongoing revisions.) The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) is a national, independent research center dedicated to continuous improvement of the process and culture of the civil justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • March 18, 2020 Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge
    Revised: March 18, 2020 EMERGENCY INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge Chambers Email: [email protected] Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Emergency Individual Rules and Practices apply to all matters before Judge Nathan (whether criminal or civil and whether involving a pro se party or all counseled parties), and they are a supplement to Judge Nathan’s standard Individual Rules and Practices. If there is a conflict between these Rules and Judge Nathan’s standard Individual Rules and Practices, these Rules control. 1. No Paper Submissions Absent Undue Hardship A. No papers, including courtesy hard copies of any filing or document, may be submitted to Chambers. All documents must be filed on ECF or, if permitted or required under the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices, emailed to [email protected]. B. In the event that a party or counsel is unable to submit a document electronically — either by ECF or email — the document may be mailed to the Court. To the maximum extent possible, however, this means of delivery should be avoided, as delivery of mail to the Court is likely to be delayed. 2. Conferences and Proceedings A. In Civil Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all conferences and proceedings in civil cases will be held by telephone. In some cases, the Court may direct one of the parties to set up a conference line. In all other cases, the parties should call into the Court’s dedicated conference line at (888) 363-4749, and enter Access Code 919-6964, followed by the pound (#) key.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2011 Address Service Requested BLS BLS Lawnotes Spring Spring 2011
    250 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201 LawNotesThe Magazine of Brooklyn Law School | Spring 2011 address service requested BLS BLS LawNotes Spring 2011 Upcoming Events JUNE 6 COMMENCEMENT AUGUST 24 FALL SEMESTER CLASSES BEGIN speaker: Judge Thomas Buergenthal, International Court of Justice in The Hague (ret.) OCTOBER 6 BELFER LECTURE Avery Fisher Hall speaker: Commissioner Alan Bersin, US Customs and Border Protection JUNE 9 RECENT GRADUATE COCKTAIL PARTY Little Cheese Pub, Manhattan OCTOBER 21 SYMPOSIUM “Globalization of the United States JULY 10 ON THE ROAD: SEATTLE Litigation Model” Fairmont Olympic Hotel Sponsored by the Dennis J. Block Center for the Study of International Business Law and the Brooklyn Journal of International Law JULY 24 HAMPTONS SUMMER COCKTAIL RECEPTION Home of Stacy Kanter ’84 and Eric Kornblau ’84 NOVEMBER 11 SYMPOSIUM “Crawford and Beyond III: AUGUST 15 CONVOCATION Confrontation Clause Limitations on A World of Opportunity Hearsay Evidence, Differing Perspectives Sponsored by the Journal of Law and Policy BLS Fellows Work around the Globe, Gaining Enriching International Experience For more information about events and dates, please visit our Web site at www.brooklaw.edu/NewsAndEvents. 1 • BLSLawNotes | Spring 2011 BLSLawNotes Vol. 16, No. 1 Editor-in-Chief Graphic Design Linda S. Harvey Ron Hester Design WE WANT YOU!!! Assistant Dean for External Affairs Photographers Managing Editor Damion Edwards Andrea Strong ’94 Matilda Garrido Ron Hester Contributors Alan Perlman …to hire Diana Barnes-Brown Joe Vericker Bethany Blankley Daniel J. Goodstadt ’10 Printer our students! Tina Herrera Finlay Printing Alison Holstein ’12 Ivy Miller BLS LawNotes is published Rachel Rehwinkel ’07 semi-annually by Stephanie Staal ’10 Brooklyn Law School Andrea Strong ’94 for alumni, students, faculty and friends.
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:20-Cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 25
    Case 1:20-cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS NEVES, and all those similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS HODGSON, Bristol County Sheriff Civil Action No. in his Official Capacity; STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent Bristol County House of Corrections in his Official Capacity; TODD LYONS, Boston Field Office, Acting Director, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in his CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Official Capacity; 2241 AND COMPLAINT FOR CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE of Homeland Security, in his Official Capacity; RELIEF MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his Official Capacity; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents-Defendants. _______________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1. This case presents a request for immediate relief on behalf of a putative class of highly vulnerable Petitioner-Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) – civil immigration detainees held by Respondents-Defendants (“Defendants”) at the Bristol County House of Corrections and C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center (“Carreiro”) in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts (hereinafter collectively “Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities”) – who are at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the lethal virus that is sweeping the globe and that feeds on precisely the unsafe, congregate conditions in which Plaintiffs are being held. 1 Case 1:20-cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 25 2. The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 infection – and death – has produced an unprecedented global pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • April 28, 2020 Twenty-Third Interim Report
    08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document Pg 1 of 66 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Irving H. Picard Email: [email protected] David J. Sheehan Email: [email protected] Seanna R. Brown Email: [email protected] Heather R. Wlodek Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and the Chapter 7 Estate of Bernard L. Madoff UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (SMB) v. SIPA Liquidation BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT (Substantively Consolidated) SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF, Debtor. TRUSTEE’S TWENTY-THIRD INTERIM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2020 4812-5216-8375.2 08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document TABLEPg OF 2 CONTENTSof 66 Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3 III. FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ESTATE ..................................................................3 IV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION ...........................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • 2021-02-01 Litigation Rules Update Summaries
    Litigation Rules Update Summaries Update Summary February 01, 2021: The following new Rules Set was created: SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge John P. Cronan The following Rules Sets were renamed: No Rules Sets were renamed. The following Rules Sets were removed: No Rules Sets were removed. The following Rules Sets were reactivated: No Rules Sets were reactivated. The following Rules Sets were revised: Federal Rules of Bankruptcy USDC ‐‐ M.D. Alabama CA ‐‐ Amador County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Fresno County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Inyo County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Monterey County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Nevada County Superior Court CA ‐‐ San Benito County Superior Court CA ‐‐ San Joaquin County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Santa Clara County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Santa Cruz County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Shasta County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Solano County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Stanislaus County Superior Courts CA ‐‐ Ventura County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Yolo County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Fresno County Superior Court ‐ Family CA ‐‐ Santa Clara County Superior Court ‐ Family CA ‐‐ Ventura County Superior Court ‐ Family DC ‐‐ Rules of Civil Procedure USBC ‐‐ M.D. Florida USBC ‐‐ N.D. Illinois USBC ‐‐ District of Massachusetts USBC ‐‐ E.D. Michigan MI ‐‐ 46th Circuit Court (Otsego, Kalkaska, and Crawford) MO ‐‐ Thirty‐First Judicial Circuit (Greene) NE ‐‐ Uniform County Court Rules SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Ronnie Abrams SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Richard M. Berman SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge P. Kevin Castel SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Kenneth M. Karas SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Edgardo Ramos USBC ‐‐ S.D. New York NY Appellate Division, Rules of Practice NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, First Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Second Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Third Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Fourth Department USDC ‐‐ District of North Dakota USDC ‐‐ N.D.
    [Show full text]
  • (“ERISA”) Decisions As They Were Reported on Westlaw Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016
    DRAFT * This document is a case summary compilation of select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) decisions as they were reported on Westlaw between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice. Case summaries prepared by Michelle L. Roberts, Partner, Roberts Bartolic LLP, 1050 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 105, Alameda, CA 94501. © Roberts Bartolic LLP I. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................. 11 A. First Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 11 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 11 C. Third Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 14 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 14 E. Fifth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 15 F. Sixth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 16 G. Seventh Circuit ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • September(27+29,(2013( Hon
    Jus4ces(and( Judges( Women&Transforming&Our& Communi1es&and&the&World& September(27+29,(2013( Hon. Ruth I. Abrams Class of 1956 “… it was clear one judge didn’t want me in the courtroom [even though I was the Assistant DA in Middlesex County]. He said I could not be in the courtroom without a hat and white gloves. The white hat and gloves were an excuse. Do you know how dirty the old Middlesex County courthouse was?” Honorable Ruth I. Abrams (Ret.) Justice, First Female Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Harvard Law School Class of 1956 Radcliffe College (A.B., 1953) Hon. Cynthia G. Aaron '84 Hon. Sharon V. Burrell '82 Hon. Mary Grace Diehl '77 Hon. Justice Arden '70 Hon. Zoe A. Bush '79 Hon. Raya S. Dreben '54 Hon. Christine M. Arguello '80 Hon. V. Buthelezi-Khampepe '82 Hon. Fernande R. V. Duffly '78 Hon. Deborah A. Batts '72 Hon. Diane O. Campbell '76 Hon. Antoinette L. Dupont '54 Hon. Carol Berkman '67 Hon. Yvonne E. Campos '88 Hon. Jacquelyn P. Eckert '94 Hon. Marie-France Bich '80 Hon. Susan L. Carney '77 Hon. Maryanne E. Elliott '90 Hon. Cathy Bissoon '93 Hon. Denise Jefferson Casper '94 Hon. Christine C. Ewell '86 Hon. Catherine C. Blake '75 Hon. Shelley C. Chapman '81 Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer '84 Hon. Karen J. Brandt '79 Hon. Dorothy Chin-Brandt '75 Hon. Dale S. Fischer '80 Hon. F. S. Brenneman '53 Hon. Cynthia J. Cohen '75 Hon. Fern Fisher '78 Hon. Eileen M. Brewer '87 Hon. Laura A. Cordero '88 Hon.
    [Show full text]